Re: Re: Insteon now or wait?

["BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd have that van swept for bugs. ;-)

 BTW, once the plane is airborne flying it into a building wouldn't take
a lot of skill. These guys had taken flying lessons. I have a Private
Pilot license and some years ago had the opportunity to fly the Flying
Tigers (now FedEx) 747 simulator, a 9 million dollar rig that is so
realistic it actually had a tail number and was considered actual time
in my logbook.  With only the skills of a single engine Cessna pilot, I
was able to perform all the basic flight operations, i.e. take-off,
pattern work and landing with no more than a one hour pre-flight
briefing. Admittedly, my landings weren't "greasers" (but I didn't blow
any tires either according to the computer) but the WTC terrorists
weren't particularly interested in that phase of flight.


> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1t6dnao-YPExlFLZnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
>> "E. Lee Dickinson" <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:eai34b$clq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Sheen
>
> First thing, I have no opinion either way. I have spent a ton of time
> reading all of these articles and watching the videos, and mostly
> have come to only one conclusion: it is fascinating.
>
> One thing that bothers me in particular is Building 7, which was not
> impacted by an airplane, which showed a textbook demolition, which
> contained a government emergency response center, which was a block
> away from WTC I and II... that one bothers me a little.
>
>> In this case, if you understand how the burning jet fuel worked, it's
>> quite
>> easy to understand why the building pancaked.  Anyone who's ever
>> seen an overloading shelving unit collapse (me!) knows that when you
>> overload supports, they'll fail and, in turn, cause the supports
>> underneath them to fail.
>
> The freefall math a few people have done seems to suggest the pancake
> theory doesn't hold water. Namely, they say that when a building
> pancakes, the impact of the top on each bottom floor slows down the
> fall of the top. IE, it happens in a sequance which hesitates a tiny
> bit as it hits each element of resistance.
>
> The math done by some very smart people suggests that the top of
> Building 7 hits the ground at a freefall time period, meaning that
> the lower floors showed no resistance to the freefall whatsoever.
>
> Then we get into things like chemists finding traces of thermite, the
> fact that the mechanical engineering community wanted to examine the
> rubble so they could design better buildins int he future but weren't
> allowed to, soem inconsistancies in passenger manifests on the
> airplanes, the near impossibility of navigating a jet liner without
> training in flight deck operations......
>
> As I said, I really have no opinion. But it seems plain that there
> are some questions that should maybe be answered.
>
> Personally, if there's any sort of cover-up, I think it more likely
> that someone is covering up our intelligence ineptitude, not some
> government plot to kill lots of Americans.  Who knows.
>
> I do know this:  This thread sparked this discussion again between me
> and my coworkers during a van ride home from DC yesterday.  We had
> been discussing it for about an hour, had fallen into silence. A car
> merged onto the interstate in front of us, with the license plate
> "WTCI&II".  One of my female coworkers flipped out. She reads her
> horoscope daily and things like that.
>
> It WAS a little freaky.